Introduction to Criminal Law

You are driving along and you are stopped by a police officer who notices that you were texting at the last red light. The police officer informs you that you have broken the new law banning cell phones in Ontario. Are you entitled to use the fact that you did not know the law as a defense? You are driving along and you are stopped by a police officer who notices that you were texting at the last red light. The police officer informs you that you have broken the new law banning cell phones in Ontario. Are you entitled to use the fact that you did not know the law as a defense?

NO! S. 19 of the Criminal Code states that ignorance of the law is no excuse for the commission of a crime S. 19 of the Criminal Code states that ignorance of the law is no excuse for the commission of a crime Is this a reasonable assumption? Is this a reasonable assumption?

Actus reus Refers to “guilty act” Refers to “guilty act” The physical act involved in commission of offense The physical act involved in commission of offense The actus reus of a criminal offense is found in its criminal code definition The actus reus of a criminal offense is found in its criminal code definition Eg. s. 265 of the Criminal Code defines assault assault: Eg. s. 265 of the Criminal Code defines assault assault: (1) A person commits assault when (a) Without the consent of another person, he applies force intentionally to that person, either directly or indirectly For actus reus, a person must actually hit another person For actus reus, a person must actually hit another person

Actus Reus To prove actus reus, the Crown would have to demonstrate that To prove actus reus, the Crown would have to demonstrate that (a) there was no consent (b) force was applied (b) force was applied

Exception Automatism and Actus Reus Actus Reus of a criminal act must be voluntary Actus Reus of a criminal act must be voluntary If someone shoots someone while sleep walking, he may not be criminally liable If someone shoots someone while sleep walking, he may not be criminally liable E.g. Kenneth Parks case The Supreme Court upheld the acquittal of Parks whose defense was that he was sleepwalking when he stabbed his mother in law to death E.g. Kenneth Parks case The Supreme Court upheld the acquittal of Parks whose defense was that he was sleepwalking when he stabbed his mother in law to death His defense was that he acted involuntarily (automatism) His defense was that he acted involuntarily (automatism)

Mens Rea Refers to having a “guilty mind.” Refers to having a “guilty mind.” Phrase infers moral guilt and the accused knowing they did something wrong Phrase infers moral guilt and the accused knowing they did something wrong To meet the legal definition of a crime, the Crown must prove an act was done with criminal intent OR knowledge that what he/she did was against the law To meet the legal definition of a crime, the Crown must prove an act was done with criminal intent OR knowledge that what he/she did was against the law

INTENT Intent, in the legal sense, means to carry out and act with intent, with knowledge, or by being reckless or wilfully blind to the consequences of an act. Intent, in the legal sense, means to carry out and act with intent, with knowledge, or by being reckless or wilfully blind to the consequences of an act. E.g. If John threw a knife up in the air, which accidently killed Luke, would Johnny likely be guilty of manslaugher? E.g. If John threw a knife up in the air, which accidently killed Luke, would Johnny likely be guilty of manslaugher? Yes, because you cannot be “wilfully blind” to the consequences of your actions Yes, because you cannot be “wilfully blind” to the consequences of your actions

General Intent versus Specific Intent General intent General intent Means to commit a wrongful act for its own sake, with no other purpose or motive Means to commit a wrongful act for its own sake, with no other purpose or motive Dave punches Luke because he is angry. Dave has general intent to commit assault. Dave punches Luke because he is angry. Dave has general intent to commit assault. For mens rea to be proven, all that needs to be done is to show that Dave punched Luke For mens rea to be proven, all that needs to be done is to show that Dave punched Luke

General Intent versus Specific Intent Specific intent Specific intent Involves intent in addition to the general intent to commit the crime Involves intent in addition to the general intent to commit the crime It is committing one wrongful act to accomplish another It is committing one wrongful act to accomplish another E.g Burglary is the breaking and entering of a dwelling-house with intent to commit an indictable offense. The break and enter requires general intent, the intent to commit an indictable offense requires specific intent E.g Burglary is the breaking and entering of a dwelling-house with intent to commit an indictable offense. The break and enter requires general intent, the intent to commit an indictable offense requires specific intent In order to prove burglary, the Crown not only has to show that a person broke into a house, but also had the specific intent of stealing. In order to prove burglary, the Crown not only has to show that a person broke into a house, but also had the specific intent of stealing.

MOTIVE While intent refers to the state of mind with which an act is done or not done While intent refers to the state of mind with which an act is done or not done Motive is what prompts a person to commit an act or not act Motive is what prompts a person to commit an act or not act If a person kills her mother to receive an inheritance, the inheritance is motive. This does not establish state of mind to commit murder If a person kills her mother to receive an inheritance, the inheritance is motive. This does not establish state of mind to commit murder Crown must prove intent by showing killing was planned and deliberate Crown must prove intent by showing killing was planned and deliberate

Knowledge In order to have the requisite mens rea to commit a crime, a person must have some knowledge of the actus reus of the crime In order to have the requisite mens rea to commit a crime, a person must have some knowledge of the actus reus of the crime Eg. S (a) of the Criminal Code states that “Everyone who, knowing that a document is forged, uses, deals, or acts upon it” is guilty of circulating a forged document Eg. S (a) of the Criminal Code states that “Everyone who, knowing that a document is forged, uses, deals, or acts upon it” is guilty of circulating a forged document To establish guilt, the Crown only has to prove that the person knew the document was forged.... Nothing about intent. To establish guilt, the Crown only has to prove that the person knew the document was forged.... Nothing about intent.

Recklessness and Wilful Blindness Crown can also establish mens rea by proving accused acted reckless. Crown can also establish mens rea by proving accused acted reckless. Recklessness Recklessness Usually involves taking an unjustifiable risk that a reasonable person would not take Usually involves taking an unjustifiable risk that a reasonable person would not take Eg. recklessly shooting a pellet gun into a crowd. The accused may not have tried to hurt someone, but they should have been able to foresee harm Eg. recklessly shooting a pellet gun into a crowd. The accused may not have tried to hurt someone, but they should have been able to foresee harm Willful blindness Willful blindness Suspects a criminal outcome but does not ask the questions to confirm Suspects a criminal outcome but does not ask the questions to confirm Eg. transporting something illegal such as drugs in a trunk Eg. transporting something illegal such as drugs in a trunk

Strict Liability For some crimes (less serious), the Crown only needs prove the actus reus of the offense (just the guilty act) For some crimes (less serious), the Crown only needs prove the actus reus of the offense (just the guilty act) Strict liability offenses, the accused will be convicted unless it is demonstrated that they acted with due diligence (acted as any reasonable person would under the circumstances) Strict liability offenses, the accused will be convicted unless it is demonstrated that they acted with due diligence (acted as any reasonable person would under the circumstances) The word knowingly is not in the crime definition The word knowingly is not in the crime definition Eg. A company dumping pollutants into a river Eg. A company dumping pollutants into a river Only defense would be due diligence– that they took precautions to avoid dumping pollutants Only defense would be due diligence– that they took precautions to avoid dumping pollutants Monitoring devices were faulty Monitoring devices were faulty Special training for staff working on keeping river clean Special training for staff working on keeping river clean

Absolute Liability These offenses allow for no defense, fault is not an issue, and the accused will be convicted based on the actus reus of the offense These offenses allow for no defense, fault is not an issue, and the accused will be convicted based on the actus reus of the offense